Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how large language models (LLMs) express argumentative content in debates across six languages, focusing on the concept of prior-argument similarity to assess whether later turns in debates introduce new arguments or rephrase earlier ones. The research reveals that Chinese consistently outperforms English in maintaining argumentative diversity, indicating a significant language-specific gap in how arguments are articulated. Notably, while a diversity-aware prompt reduces prior-argument similarity across languages, it does not close the gap between Chinese and English, underscoring the need for nuanced evaluation in multilingual debate settings.
Chinese LLMs maintain more argumentative diversity in debates than their English counterparts, revealing critical insights into multilingual model performance.
LLM debate is usually evaluated by final answers, but transcripts also reveal whether later turns develop new argumentative content or return to earlier claims in new wording. We study this process with \textit{prior-argument similarity}, an aggregate diagnostic comparing extracted argument units with earlier units in the same debate. In controlled eight-turn debates over 71 motions, six languages, and four model agents, Chinese is the only tested language with a consistently positive gap relative to English across three multilingual embedding models. The gap persists across agents, turn positions, regression adjustment, metric variants, extraction-length controls, a second-extractor subset, and cross-encoder tail rescoring. Manual calibration shows weak item-level alignment but a high-similarity tail enriched for substantive repetition. A diversity-aware prompt lowers prior-argument similarity across languages, yet does not significantly narrow the Chinese--English gap. These findings suggest that multilingual debate evaluation should measure argumentative development over time and report mitigation effects in both average and gap terms.